MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782219207 · doi:10.3390/s18010091

A Review of Oil Spill Remote Sensing

2017· review· en· W2782219207 on OpenAlexaff
Merv Fingas, Carl E. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil spillRemote sensingPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The technical aspects of oil spill remote sensing are examined and the practical uses and drawbacks of each technology are given with a focus on unfolding technology. The use of visible techniques is ubiquitous, but limited to certain observational conditions and simple applications. Infrared cameras offer some potential as oil spill sensors but have several limitations. Both techniques, although limited in capability, are widely used because of their increasing economy. The laser fluorosensor uniquely detects oil on substrates that include shoreline, water, soil, plants, ice, and snow. New commercial units have come out in the last few years. Radar detects calm areas on water and thus oil on water, because oil will reduce capillary waves on a water surface given moderate winds. Radar provides a unique option for wide area surveillance, all day or night and rainy/cloudy weather. Satellite-carried radars with their frequent overpass and high spatial resolution make these day-night and all-weather sensors essential for delineating both large spills and monitoring ship and platform oil discharges. Most strategic oil spill mapping is now being carried out using radar. Slick thickness measurements have been sought for many years. The operative technique at this time is the passive microwave. New techniques for calibration and verification have made these instruments more reliable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations419
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207